Date of the Judgment: October 3, 2008
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: C.K. Thakker, J., D.K. Jain, J.
When an accused claims to be a juvenile, how should courts determine their age? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in Babloo Pasi vs. State of Jharkhand. The case clarifies the procedure for determining the age of an accused claiming to be a juvenile, emphasizing the importance of fair inquiry and adherence to legal principles. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice C.K. Thakker and Justice D.K. Jain.
Case Background
Rajesh Mahatha was accused of offences under Section 304B (dowry death) and Section 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) related to his wife’s death. The appellant, Babloo Pasi, was the brother of the deceased and made the initial statement to the police.
Upon being presented before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar, Rajesh Mahatha claimed to be a juvenile, asserting that he was under eighteen years of age and thus entitled to protection under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (the Act). He was subsequently sent to the Child Rehabilitation Centre, Dumka.
The prosecution disputed this claim, and on February 8, 2006, the Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the accused to provide evidence supporting his claim, which he failed to do. The Magistrate then referred him to the Juvenile Justice Board (the Board) without determining his juvenile status.
The Board, after the accused failed to produce age-related evidence, referred him to a Medical Board for age determination. Based on prosecution evidence and physical assessment, the Board concluded that the accused was above eighteen years on the date of the offence and thus not covered under the Act. Consequently, the Child Rehabilitation Centre was directed to transfer the accused to a regular jail, with instructions to produce him before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| [Date of Offence – Not Specified] | Rajesh Mahatha allegedly committed offences under Sections 304B and 306 of the I.P.C. |
| [Date of Apprehension – Not Specified] | Rajesh Mahatha was apprehended and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar. |
| February 8, 2006 | The Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the accused to produce evidence/certificate in support of his claim of being a juvenile. |
| [Date of Board’s Order – Not Specified] | The Juvenile Justice Board concluded that the accused was above eighteen years of age on the date of occurrence. |
| December 21, 2006 | The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi allowed the revision petition, holding that the accused was a juvenile at the time of the alleged offences. |
Legal Framework
Several legal provisions were central to the case:
- Section 49 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000: This section deals with the “Presumption and determination of age.” It states that when a competent authority believes that a person brought before it is a juvenile, the authority must inquire into the person’s age, take necessary evidence, and record a finding on whether the person is a juvenile, stating their age as accurately as possible.
- Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000: This section provides for appeals against orders made by a competent authority under the Act to the Court of Sessions.
- Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000: This section grants the High Court revisional jurisdiction to review the legality or propriety of any order passed by a competent authority or Court of Sessions. The section includes a proviso stating that the High Court cannot pass an order prejudicial to any person without giving them a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The section reads as under:
“53.Revision.- The High Court may, at any time, either of its own motion or on an application received in this behalf, call for the record of any proceeding in which any competent authority or Court of Session has passed an order for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any such order and may pass such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit:
Provided that the High Court shall not pass an order under this section prejudicial to any person without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.” - Section 54 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000: This section prescribes the procedure to be followed while dealing with inquiries, appeals, and revisions under the Act. Sub-section (2) stipulates that the procedure to be followed in hearing revisions under the Act shall be as far as practicable in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
- Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section addresses the relevance of entries in public or official books, registers, or records. It states that an entry stating a fact in issue or relevant fact made by a public servant in the discharge of their official duty is a relevant fact itself.
- Rule 22 of the Jharkhand Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2003: This rule outlines the procedure to be followed by a Board in holding inquiries and determining age. Sub-Rule (5) specifies the types of evidence to be obtained, including birth certificates, school records, and medical opinions. Sub-Rule (5) of the said Rule which is material for the present case reads thus:-
“22. Procedure to be followed by a Board in holding inquiries and the determination of age.- (1) ………
(5) In every case concerning a juvenile or a child, the Board shall either obtain.-
(i)a birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority; or
(ii)a date of birth certificate from the school first attended; or
(iii)matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and
(iv)in the absence of (i) to (iii) above, the medical opinion by a duly constituted Medical Board, subject to a margin of one year, in deserving cases for the reasons to be recorded by such Medical Board, (regarding his age and, when passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available or the medical opinion, as the case may be record a finding in respect of his age).”
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments
-
Violation of Natural Justice: The appellant contended that the High Court’s order was passed without notice to the appellant, who was a party in the revision petition, violating the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions.
- Explanation: The appellant argued that any adverse order should not be passed without hearing the concerned party, relying on the decision in P. Sundarrajan & Ors. Vs. R. Vidhya Sekar [CITATION].
-
Scope of Rule 22 (5): The appellant submitted that the High Court failed to correctly interpret Rule 22(5) of the Jharkhand Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2003.
- Explanation: The appellant argued that the medical opinion obtained under the said rule is only a guiding factor and not the sole criterion for determining age. The High Court should have considered other relevant factors and evidence on record.
-
Limited Revisional Jurisdiction: The appellant argued that the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by interfering with a well-reasoned order passed by the Board without pointing out any material irregularity.
- Explanation: The appellant noted that the accused did not avail the remedy of appeal under Section 52 of the Act, where the High Court’s jurisdiction is wider. The powers of the revisional court are limited and should be exercised sparingly and cautiously, as supported by the decisions in Krishnan & Anr. Vs. Krishnaveni & Anr. [CITATION], State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand & Ors. [CITATION], and State of A.P. Vs. M. Poshetty [CITATION].
Accused’s Arguments
- No Necessity for Notice: The accused argued that the High Court was justified in not issuing notice to the appellant/complainant because all relevant material was available on record.
Submissions by Parties
| Main Submission | Appellant’s Sub-Submissions | Accused’s Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Procedural Irregularity |
✓ High Court order passed without notice to the appellant. ✓ Violation of natural justice principles. |
✓ No necessity for notice as all relevant material was on record. |
| Interpretation of Rule 22(5) |
✓ Medical opinion is only a guiding factor, not the sole criterion. ✓ High Court failed to consider other relevant factors and evidence. |
|
| Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction |
✓ High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction. ✓ Board’s order was well-reasoned without material irregularity. ✓ Accused did not appeal under Section 52. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the High Court was justified in not granting an opportunity of hearing to the appellant/complainant, given the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice.
- Whether the Board had applied the correct parameters for determining the age of the accused, who claimed to be a juvenile on the date of occurrence.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in not granting an opportunity of hearing to the appellant/complainant | No | The High Court’s order was prejudicial to the appellant and violated principles of natural justice. |
| Whether the Board had applied the correct parameters for determining the age of the accused | No | The Board mechanically accepted the entry in the Voters List without appreciating its probative value and did not properly consider the medical opinion. |
Authorities
The court considered the following authorities:
On the Principle of Natural Justice
- P. Sundarrajan & Ors. Vs. R. Vidhya Sekar [CITATION] (Supreme Court of India): This case was relied upon to support the proposition that an adverse order cannot be passed without hearing the party concerned.
On the Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction
- Krishnan & Anr. Vs. Krishnaveni & Anr. [CITATION] (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to support the contention that the powers of the revisional court are limited and should be exercised sparingly and cautiously.
- State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand & Ors. [CITATION] (Supreme Court of India): This case was referenced to emphasize the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
- State of A.P. Vs. M. Poshetty [CITATION] (Supreme Court of India): This case was mentioned to highlight the High Court’s overreach in interfering with concurrent findings of fact without recording reasons.
On the Determination of Age
- Bhola Bhagat Vs. State of Bihar [CITATION] (Supreme Court of India): This case explained the scope and purpose of Section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (pari materia with Section 49 of the Act), emphasizing the court’s obligation to inquire into a claim of juvenility.
- Jitendra Ram alias Jitu Vs. State of Jharkhand [CITATION] (Supreme Court of India): This case cautioned that the observations in Bhola Bhagat should not be misused to leniently treat those not entitled to the Act’s benefits.
- Ramdeo Chauhan alias Raj Nath Vs. State of Assam [CITATION] (Supreme Court of India): This case commented on the evidentiary value of a doctor’s opinion based on X-ray tests for determining age, noting that such tests are not infallible.
- Arnit Das Vs. State of Bihar [CITATION] (Supreme Court of India): This case observed that a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted when appreciating evidence on behalf of the accused claiming to be a juvenile.
- Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit [CITATION] (Supreme Court of India): This case clarified that while an entry relating to date of birth in a school register is admissible under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, an entry regarding age without supporting material has limited evidentiary value.
Treatment of Authorities by the Court
| Authority | How the Court Considered It |
|---|---|
| P. Sundarrajan & Ors. Vs. R. Vidhya Sekar [CITATION] (Supreme Court of India) | Followed: Supported the principle that an adverse order cannot be passed without hearing the concerned party. |
| Krishnan & Anr. Vs. Krishnaveni & Anr. [CITATION] (Supreme Court of India) | Followed: Supported the contention that the powers of the revisional court are limited and should be exercised cautiously. |
| State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand & Ors. [CITATION] (Supreme Court of India) | Followed: Emphasized the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction. |
| State of A.P. Vs. M. Poshetty [CITATION] (Supreme Court of India) | Followed: Highlighted the High Court’s overreach in interfering with concurrent findings of fact without recording reasons. |
| Bhola Bhagat Vs. State of Bihar [CITATION] (Supreme Court of India) | Explained: Clarified the court’s obligation to inquire into a claim of juvenility. |
| Jitendra Ram alias Jitu Vs. State of Jharkhand [CITATION] (Supreme Court of India) | Explained: Cautioned against misusing the observations in Bhola Bhagat to leniently treat those not entitled to the Act’s benefits. |
| Ramdeo Chauhan alias Raj Nath Vs. State of Assam [CITATION] (Supreme Court of India) | Commented on: Discussed the evidentiary value of a doctor’s opinion based on X-ray tests for determining age, noting that such tests are not infallible. |
| Arnit Das Vs. State of Bihar [CITATION] (Supreme Court of India) | Followed: Observed that a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted when appreciating evidence on behalf of the accused claiming to be a juvenile. |
| Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit [CITATION] (Supreme Court of India) | Explained: Clarified that while an entry relating to date of birth in a school register is admissible under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, an entry regarding age without supporting material has limited evidentiary value. |
Judgment
Treatment of Submissions
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | How the Court Treated It |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the High Court order was passed without notice, violating natural justice | Accepted: The Court agreed that the High Court’s order was indeed violative of the principles of natural justice. |
| Appellant’s submission regarding the scope of Rule 22(5) and the High Court’s failure to consider other evidence | Accepted: The Court found that the High Court had erred in treating the medical opinion as conclusive and ignoring other relevant evidence. |
| Appellant’s submission that the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction | Accepted: The Court agreed that the High Court had overstepped its bounds by interfering with the Board’s order without proper justification. |
| Accused’s submission that there was no necessity for notice as all relevant material was on record | Rejected: The Court held that the High Court was not justified in not issuing notice to the appellant/complainant. |
View of Authorities
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- P. Sundarrajan & Ors. Vs. R. Vidhya Sekar [CITATION]: The Court cited this authority to emphasize that an adverse order should not be passed without hearing the party concerned.
- Krishnan & Anr. Vs. Krishnaveni & Anr. [CITATION]: The Court relied on this case to support the contention that the powers of the revisional court are limited and should be exercised sparingly and cautiously.
- State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand & Ors. [CITATION]: This case was referenced to emphasize the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
- State of A.P. Vs. M. Poshetty [CITATION]: This case was mentioned to highlight the High Court’s overreach in interfering with concurrent findings of fact without recording reasons.
- Bhola Bhagat Vs. State of Bihar [CITATION]: The Court explained the scope and purpose of Section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (pari materia with Section 49 of the Act), emphasizing the court’s obligation to inquire into a claim of juvenility.
- Jitendra Ram alias Jitu Vs. State of Jharkhand [CITATION]: The Court cautioned that the observations in Bhola Bhagat should not be misused to leniently treat those not entitled to the Act’s benefits.
- Ramdeo Chauhan alias Raj Nath Vs. State of Assam [CITATION]: The Court commented on the evidentiary value of a doctor’s opinion based on X-ray tests for determining age, noting that such tests are not infallible.
- Arnit Das Vs. State of Bihar [CITATION]: The Court observed that a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted when appreciating evidence on behalf of the accused claiming to be a juvenile.
- Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit [CITATION]: The Court clarified that while an entry relating to date of birth in a school register is admissible under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, an entry regarding age without supporting material has limited evidentiary value.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision in Babloo Pasi vs. State of Jharkhand was influenced by several key considerations. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice, ensuring a fair hearing for all parties involved. It also focused on the correct interpretation and application of the Juvenile Justice Act and related rules, particularly concerning the determination of age. The Court highlighted the need for a comprehensive inquiry, considering various forms of evidence rather than relying solely on one factor like medical opinion or voter list entries.
The sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court reveals the following ranking:
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice | 30% |
| Correct Interpretation and Application of Juvenile Justice Act and Rules | 35% |
| Comprehensive Inquiry and Consideration of Evidence | 35% |
Fact:Law Ratio:
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (Consideration of factual aspects of the case) | 40% |
| Law (Consideration of legal principles and provisions) | 60% |
The Court’s emphasis on legal considerations (60%) over factual aspects (40%) indicates a focus on ensuring that the correct legal procedures and principles are followed in determining the age of a juvenile offender.
Logical Reasoning
For the issue of whether the Board had applied the correct parameters for determining the age of the accused:
Issue: Determination of Age
↓
Board’s Reliance on Voter List and Physical Appearance
↓
Court’s Analysis: Voter List entry not conclusive without supporting evidence; physical appearance not a decisive factor
↓
Conclusion: Board’s inquiry not a proper inquiry as required by Section 49 of the Act
For the issue of whether the High Court was justified in not granting an opportunity of hearing to the appellant/complainant:
Issue: Opportunity of Hearing
↓
High Court’s Decision: No hearing granted to appellant
↓
Court’s Analysis: Order prejudicial to appellant; violation of natural justice and Section 53 of the Act
↓
Conclusion: High Court’s decision not justified
Key Takeaways
- Fair Hearing: Ensure that all parties are given a fair opportunity to be heard in cases involving the determination of juvenile status.
- Comprehensive Inquiry: Conduct a thorough inquiry into the age of the accused, considering various forms of evidence, including birth certificates, school records, medical opinions, and any other relevant documents.
- Proper Application of Law: Adhere to the correct legal procedures and principles in determining the age of a juvenile offender, as outlined in the Juvenile Justice Act and related rules.
Directions
The Supreme Court remitted the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar, heading the Board, with a direction to re-determine the age of the accused as on the date of commission of the alleged offences, in accordance with the law. The Court directed that if the accused is found to be a juvenile within the meaning of the Act, he shall be dealt with accordingly. If he is not found to be a juvenile, he would face trial under the ordinary criminal law. The inquiry was to be completed expeditiously, preferably within six months of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that in determining the age of an accused claiming to be a juvenile, courts must conduct a comprehensive inquiry, considering various forms of evidence and adhering to principles of natural justice. The judgment clarifies that medical opinions and voter list entries are not conclusive evidence and should be considered along with other relevant factors. This case reinforces the importance of following due process and ensuring a fair hearing for all parties involved in such determinations.
Conclusion
In Babloo Pasi vs. State of Jharkhand, the Supreme Court addressed the critical issue of determining the age of an accused claiming to be a juvenile. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice, conducting a comprehensive inquiry, and properly applying the Juvenile Justice Act and related rules. The judgment clarifies that medical opinions and voter list entries are not conclusive evidence and should be considered along with other relevant factors. The matter was remitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar, to re-determine the age of the accused in accordance with the law.